A Refutation of Acharya S's Book, The Christ Conspiracy - By Mike Licona

8/6/2019 A Refutation of Acharya S's Book, The Christ Conspiracy - By Mike Licona

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-refutation-of-acharya-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-by-mike-licona 1/42

A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy

By Mike Licona

Copyright © 2001, TruthQuest Publishers

Acharya S is a skeptic with an interest in mythology who has written a book entitledThe Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. This book presents anhypothesis of how Christianity came into being. Although it has received noattention from scholarship, with the lone exception of a negative book review andthat from an atheist scholar,(1) The Christ Conspiracy has nonetheless gainedsupport from a number of laypersons. The occasion for this paper is to assessMurdock’s major claims in a brief manner in terms of their accuracy and whether herbook is a worthwhile contribution on the origin of Christianity. The paper will samplesome of her major claims. No attempts will be made to defend the Christianworldview.

Acharya means "guru" or "teacher." Her actual name is D. Murdock.(2) Throughoutthe remainder of this paper, this author will be referred to as Ms. Murdock. The

thesis of The Christ Conspiracy is that pagans and Jews who were Masons from thefirst and second centuries got together and invented the account of Jesus and hisdisciples in order to create a religion which it was hoped would serve as a one-worldreligion for the Roman empire. This religion would be a collage of all of the otherworld religions and combined with astrology.

This, of course, is a radical and unorthodox picture of Christianity. However, beingradical and unorthodox does not invalidate a view. Notwithstanding, if Ms. Murdock’spicture of Christianity is to be believed as correct, she has to be accurate in herassessment of the details of the other religions she cites in terms of their similaritieswith Christianity, correct in her assessment of ancient astrology, correct in her

peculiar datings of the Gospels, and correct concerning the Masons. If she isincorrect on any one of these, her hypothesis must be altered or abandoned. It iswhen we look at the areas of astrology, comparative religion, New Testament highercriticism, Freemasonry, and other issues, we find her to be incorrect in every one of these areas.

1. Astrology

Ms. Murdock claims that as myth developed, "it took the form of a play, with a castof characters, including the 12 divisions of the sky called the signs or constellationsof the zodiac. The symbols that typified these 12 celestial sections of 300 each were

not based on what the constellations actually look like but represent aspects of earthly life. Thus, the ancient peoples were able to incorporate these earthly aspects



into the mythos and project them onto the all-important celestial screen."(3) Basedon this understanding, she claims that the mythical Jesus recognized the coming of the age of Pisces; thus, the Christian fish.(4)

Is it true that astrology played a large part in the formation of Christianity as Ms.Murdock asserts? Noel Swerdlow is Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at theUniversity of Chicago. He has specialized in the study of the practice of astronomy inantiquity through the 17th century. I emailed Dr. Swerdlow on this matter. Here iswhat he had to say on Ms. Murdock’s view:

In antiquity, constellations were just groups of stars, and there were no bordersseparating the region of one from the region of another. In astrology, forcomputational purposes the zodiacal signs were taken as twelve arcs of 30 degreesmeasured from the vernal equinox. Because of the slow westward motion of theequinoxes and solstices, what we call the precession of the equinoxes, these did notcorrespond to the constellations with the same names. But . . . within which groupof stars the vernal equinox was located, was of no astrological significance at all.The modern ideas about the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based uponthe location of the vernal equinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations.But the regions, the borders between, those constellations are a completely modernconvention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping . . .and never had any astrological significance. I hope this is helpful although in truthwhat this woman is claiming is so wacky that it is hardly worth answering.(5) Sowhen this woman says that the Christian fish was a symbol of the 'coming age of Pisces', she is saying something that no one would have thought of in antiquitybecause in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal equinox was located, wasof no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believe twentieth-century,astrology.(6)

In other words, the ancient "Christ conspirators" could not have recognized the 12celestial sections in order to incorporate them into a Christian myth and announcethe ushering in of the Age of Pisces as Murdock claims, because the division into thecelestial sections did not occur until a meeting of the International AstronomicalUnion in the 20th century!(7) Therefore, her claim is without any merit.

Ms. Murdock also holds that when we see 12 figures in the Bible that these arerepresentative of the 12 zodiacal signs. She writes, "In reality, it is no accident thatthere are 12 patriarchs, 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples, 12 being the number of the astrological signs . . ."(8) If we want to accept her thoughts on this, we alsoneed to accept that Dunkin Donuts is owned by an astrologer since they give adiscount when you buy a dozen donuts. Grocery stores are also run by astrologers,since you buy eggs by the dozen. Even our legal system must have been influencedby astrology, since there are 12 jurors. When you want to see astrology insomething, you see it, even when it requires that you read in foreign meanings intothe texts.

But there are further problems with her thesis. Were the 12 tribes of Israelrepresentative of the 12 signs of the zodiac as she claims?(9) She asserts thatSimeon and Levi are Gemini. Judah is Leo. And the list goes on. She also claims that

when Jacob set up 12 stones representing the tribes that they were reallyrepresenting the 12 signs of the zodiac.(10) But this is impossible. Genesis was



written approximately 1,000 B.C. and contains the story of the 12 tribes of Israelwhich would have occurred even earlier.(11) The division into the 12 zodiacal signsdid not occur until the Babylonians made the divisions in the fifth century B.C.(12)Therefore, reading astrology into the twelve tribes is anachronistic.

She also claims that "[t]he Hebrews were ‘moon -worshippers,’ since many of theirfeasts and holidays revolved around the movements and phases of the moon. Suchmoon-worship is found repeatedly in the Old Testament (Ps. 8:13 [sic], 104:19; Is.66:23), and to this day Jews celebrate holidays based on the lunar calendar. AtIsaiah 47, these moon- worshippers are equated with astrologers, i.e., ‘. . . thosewho divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, who at the new moons predict whatshall befall you.’"(13)

Were the Hebrews moon-worshippers? This seems unlikely for a couple of reasons:(A) Just because the Jews operated under a lunar calendar, does not mean that theywere moon worshippers. (B) When you look at the three biblical references sheprovides to support her claim that moon worship is found repeatedly in the OldTestament, it is readily seen that these has been taken out of context. Let us lookbriefly at these. The verses before and after have also been included, in order toprovide you with their context. The verses Ms. Murdock appeals to have beenitalicized.

From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of yourenemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider your heavens, thework of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what isman that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:2-4, NIV)

The high mountains belong to the wild goats; the crags are a refuge for the coneys.The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down. You bringdarkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl. The lions roar fortheir prey and seek their food from God. The sun rises, and they steal away; theyreturn and lie down in their dens. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor untilevening. (Psalm 104:18-23, NIV)

As we read these verses, we discover that they have nothing at all to do with moonworship. The third reference is from Isaiah where God is supposed to be speakingand says:

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,"declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one NewMoon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bowdown before me," says the LORD. "And they will go out and look upon the deadbodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their firebe quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Psalm 66:22-24)

These verses do not speak of moon-worship. Rather the psalmist says that as timegoes on, all mankind with worship the Lord. Let us now look at the final verse Ms.Murdock appeals to in support of her thesis that the Hebrews were involved in



moon-worship.

Disaster will come upon you, and you will not know how to conjure it away. Acalamity will fall upon you that you cannot ward off with a ransom; a catastropheyou cannot foresee will suddenly come upon you. Keep on, then, with your magicspells and with your many sorceries, which you have labored at since childhood.Perhaps you will succeed, perhaps you will cause terror. All the counsel you havereceived has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, thosestargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what iscoming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. Theycannot even save themselves from the power of the flame. Here are no coals towarm anyone; here is no fire to sit by. That is all they can do for you-- these youhave labored with and trafficked with since childhood. Each of them goes on in hiserror; there is not one that can save you. (Isaiah 47:11-15, NIV)

In this passage, the moon-worshippers and astrologers are clearly not the Hebrews,but the Babylonians whom God is saying He is about to destroy! So we have seenthat the three passages Ms. Murdock appeals to in support of her thesis that theHebrews were involved in moon-worship do not support her view in the least. Ratherthey have been taken out of context, a practice referred to a "proof-texting."Unfortunately, average readers will not look up her references and see this forthemselves.

This is not to say that there was not a single Hebrew who worshipped the moon. Buther absurd interpretations indicate that she has not supported her view that theHebrews as a nation had a practice of moon-worship. This is further confirmed bythe fact that the worship of anyone or anything other than God was prohibited.Whenever this practice is mentioned in the Bible, there is correction or strongcondemnation.(14) Contrary to Ms. Murdock, the Bible is not friendly towardsastrology. There is not a single verse that approves of sun worship, moon worship orastrology.

Ms. Murdock also claims that the Bible is favorable towards divination. She writes,"In the earliest parts of the Bible, divination is praised as a way to commune withGod or divine the future (Genesis 30:27). Indeed, the word ‘divination’ comes fromthe word ‘divine,’ which is a demonstration that divination was originally consideredgodly and not evil."(15) This too is an incorrect understanding of the text. Genesis30:27 records Laban telling Jacob that he has learned through divination that Godhas blessed him on Jacob’s account. But Laban was known to worship othergods.(16) This verse does not praise divination and God has said elsewhere thatdivination is evil. For example in Leviticus 19:26, it is written, "Do not practicedivination or sorcery." Likewise, in Deuteronomy 18:10-12 it is written, "Let no onebe found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practicesdivination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, orwho is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does thesethings is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices theLORD your God will drive out those nations before you."

She claims that the Bible teaches the signs found in the stars and quotes Genesis

1:14 in the old KJV: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of theheaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,



and for days, and years . . ." She says that this verse "basically describes thezodiac."(17) However, modern translations present a more accurate translation:"And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the dayfrom the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years’"(NIV). This is also how prominent Hebrew dictionaries understand it.(18)

Dr. Richard Patterson is an Old Testament scholar who has specialized in ancientSemitic languages during his career. He was involved in the translations of the NewLiving Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and is currently working onthe revision for the New International Version. He has written close to 150 journalarticles, critical reviews, and Hebrew dictionary entries. Concerning Genesis 1:14,Dr. Patterson comments, "The KJV translates this verse in a wooden sense.However, if we want to understand the original sense of the Hebrew, the NIV andNLT provide a more accurate rendering. Moreover, a look at the occurrences of thisword throughout the Old Testament reveals that it is not used in the sense of astrological signs even one time outside of our verse in question."(19)

It is interesting to note that the equivalent Greek word (shmeion) is never used inthe sense of an astrological sign in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which was popular among the Hebrews and the early Christians,although it appears 123 times.(20)

Ms. Murdock says a lot more in reference to astrology and the Bible which this shortpaper cannot address. However, it is hoped that these few samples are adequate todemonstrate that she is terribly inaccurate in her understanding of the practice of astrology among the ancients as well as her ineptness in using the Bible to supporther view.

2. Comparative Religion Studies

a. Similarities to Krishna

Ms. Murdock contends that Jesus as crucified savior was merely borrowed fromother religions. For her, one of the most striking similarities is found with Krishna,the Hindu god. Indeed, her forthcoming book, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha andChrist Unveiled" expounds on this position.(21)

What about Ms. Murdock’s claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity

must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism atRutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has

just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Peguine World Classicsand is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.

When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna hadbeen crucified, he replied, "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There isabsolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion."(22) He also addedthat Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in theheal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came therefor him could not really see it.(23)

Then I read a statement by Ms. Murdock from her article "Krishna, Crucified?" an





It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. You should not honor [Ms.Murdock] by engaging in a discussion. Please ask [her] to take a basic course inworld religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does notknow."

It is appropriate to mention here that Ms. Murdock claims to have mastered severalreligions. Her book, The Christ Conspiracy claims a mastery of Christianity and hernew book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, with excerpts foundon her web site also indicate that she believes Hinduism and Buddhism to be twoother religions which she has mastered in terms of her knowledge of them.However, as we have seen, she is terribly ignorant of the actual traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism. And as we are about to see, she is likewise mistaken whenit comes to her understanding of Christianity.

3. Christianity

We saw in section one (i.e., "Astrology") that Ms. Murdock does not use biblicaltexts in an accurate manner to support her views. In this section we will notice thatshe also possesses some peculiar views when it comes to New Testament highercriticism. Can these views be supported?

a. Very Late Datings of the Gospels

Ms. Murdock holds that the Gospels were not penned until after A. D. 150, a viewheld by no major New Testament scholar, irrespective of their theologicalperspective. She supports her position by quoting John Remsburg who wrote: "TheFour Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the mosteminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. Hiswritings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, hadthey existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of theOld Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the NewTestament; but none from the four Gospels."(36)

But this is false. In Justin’s First Apology [i.e., First Defense], he writes, "For theapostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thusdelivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and whenHe had given thanks, said, ‘This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;’ andthat, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, ‘Thisis My blood;’ and gave it to them alone."(37) So Justin calls the Gospel s the"memoirs" of the apostles and then quotes from them.(38) In his Dialogue WithTrypho, Justin makes mention of the "memoirs" another 13 times.(39) In everyinstance he either quotes from a Gospel or relates a story from them.

Why is it that Justin does not cite the Gospels when defending the deity of Christ?He is dialoguing with a Jew and wants to use the Old Testament Scriptures todefend his position, since he shares these in common with Trypho. This was also thepractice of Paul: "Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia,they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Andaccording to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned withthem from the Scriptures . . ."(40)



As further support she cites Charles Waite: "At the very threshold of the subject, weare met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he once so muchas mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of their supposedauthors, except John."(41) It is true that Justin never says who wrote them.However, contrary to Murdock’s sources, we know that they existed because Justinreferred to them and quoted them as just demonstrated above. Ms. Murdock couldclaim that the Gospels Justin referred to were different than the four we now have.But if this is the case, what data can she provide to support her view? She must alsoadequately explain why there is a complete absence of manuscripts for these whilewe have an abundant number of manuscripts for the four Gospels we now have.Moreover, the Gospels Justin appeals to seem to have precisely the same content asthe four we now have. So she will have difficulty demonstrating that multiple layersof legend were added from Justin’s time until the latter par t of the second century,since the early sources with which Justin was familiar and from which the fourgospels supposedly borrowed said precisely the same things!

She quotes Waite again: "No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other partof the New Testament. . . ."(42) He goes on to say that there is no other evidence of a Gospel until the latter part of the second century. But this is false as well. Paulappears to quote from Luke’s Gospel (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Lk 10:7). The oldestmanuscript we have is a fragment from the Gospel of John and dates to around A.D. 125 (labeled p52 and kept at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England).The early Church father, Ignatius (c. A. D. 110), who either knew the apostles orwas close to those who did, seems very familiar with the Gospel of Matthew,because of the numerous parallels and apparent quotations from Matthew. Clement(c. A. D. 95) and Polycarp (c. A. D. 110), who knew the apostles, also make use of Matthew. 2 Clement (c. A. D. 120-140) employs numerous sayings from Matthew,Luke and a few from Mark. The author of the Shepherd of Hermas (c. A. D. 90-150)almost certainly knew some or all of the four gospels. All of these early Christianwriters were from the latter part of the first century through no later than themiddle part of the second century.(43) Therefore, her claim that the Gospels werenot composed until the latter part of the second century is without support. Andthere are no respected New Testament critical scholars who embrace her datings.

Murdock quotes from The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets: "No extantmanuscript can be dated earlier than the 4th century A. D."(44) This shows noknowledge of the manuscripts that we have. The p52 papyrus mentioned a momentago dates to around 125. p75 dates to between 175-225. p46 and p66 are slightly

earlier and both date to around 200. p45, the first of the Chester Beatty Biblicalpapyri dates to the first half of the third century. p47 dates to the latter part of thethird century. p72 dates to the third century.(45) In summary, we have sevenmanuscripts, which predate the fourth century.

b. Marcion’s Gospel came first?

In the middle part of the second century, there was a fellow named Marcion, whowas considered by many in the early Church as a heretic. His view was that the Godof the Jews was evil and that Jesus was a good God who came along to save theworld from this evil God. During His crucifixion, Jesus merely appeared to have

suffered. But He really did not according to Marcion, since he did not believe thatJesus as God could suffer. Marcion is the first person known to have made a list of



the Christian books and letters which he believed were inspired. He did this betweenA. D. 180-200. Because of his beliefs, he rejected all of the Gospels accept Lukewhich he in turn changed substantially to fit his beliefs. He also accepted ten of Paul’s letters. Amazingly, Ms. Murdock says that Marcion’s Gospel preceded Luke’s,a view no serious scholar takes. Why does she think this? Because Luke said that hewas writing to Theophilus in Luke 1:3 and that Theophilus was the bishop of Antiochfrom A. D. 169-177.(46) But this is absurd. Why are we to believe that this is thesame Theophilus? If she is going to use verse 3 of the first chapter of Luke toestablish that Luke was writing to Theophilus, would it not be wise to also readverse 2 where Luke says that he received his information from the "eyewitnesses" of Jesus and "ministers of the word"? This "buffet line" approach to biblical texts whereshe takes what she wants and simply ignores what is not convenient is an extremecase of hermeneutical gymnastics.

She also thinks that the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark was an associate of Marcion. Where does she get this? She quotes a passage from Eusebius whomentions a Mark who associated with Marcion.(47) However, Eusebius never says oreven implies that this was the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark and Mark was acommon name. There is no reason at all to believe that these are the same Marks.

c. Paul’s Letters

She believes that all of Paul’s letters are forgeries. In support of this position shequotes Joseph Wheless: "The entire ‘Pauline group’ is the same forged class . . .says E. B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . ‘With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles,. . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine oreight, nor yet even the four so long "universally" regarded as unassailable. They areall, without distinction, pseudographia (false-writings, for geries). . .’"(48) She alsoquotes Hayyim ben Yehoshua who writes, "we are left with the conclusion that allthe Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic" and he also refers to Paul as a "semi-mythical" figure.(49) Again, this is a position that no major scholar takes.

Polycarp (c. A. D. 110), who knew the apostles, quotes 1 Corinthians 6:2 andassigns it as the words of Paul (Philippians 11:2). Three of the earliest apostolicfathers, two of whom probably knew the apostles, mention Paul in their writings(Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius). They mention several things about Paulincluding his sufferings and martyrdom,(50) his position as an apostle,(51) and thathe "accurately and reliably taught the word."(52) Moreover, the apostolic fatherssite several of Paul’s letters: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy. Therefore,there are good reasons to believe that Paul was an historical person who authoredseveral letters, which are contained in the New Testament. No serious scholar takesthe position of Ms. Murdock and there are good reasons why.

d. Genre

Appealing to Origen as the "most accomplished biblical scholar of the early church,"Ms. Murdock quotes him as saying, "The Scriptures were of little use to those whounderstood them literally, as they are written."(53) When we look at her endnotereferencing Origen, we find that her source is Godfrey Higgins, not a biblical scholaror an historian, but an attorney who is claiming Origen said it. When we then do a



search through all of Origen’s writings, we find that he never made that statement.In fact, Origen says precisely just the opposite. Throughout his writings, Origen doesshow how certain parts of the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically, such as"the hand of God" or God’s "anger." However, in De Principiis, he says the following:"Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history inScripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to havetaken place. . . . For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are muchmore numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritualsignification."(54) Again, this shows that Ms. Murdock is not personally familiar withOrigin’s works. She never interacts with him directly in The Christ Conspiracy.Instead, she only quotes others who end up being wrong.(55)

e. All the Variants

She says that there are about 150,000 variants in the manuscripts of the NewTestament.(56) This is quite a distortion of the truth. There are basically threedifferent manuscript traditions when it comes to the New Testament: Alexandrine,Cesarean, and Byzantine. While the Alexandrine and Cesarean are the oldest andconsidered the most reliable, the Byzantine is the latest and has the majority of manuscripts. Let us say that the spelling of a single word in one verse in theByzantine differs from the spelling of that word in the same spot in the Alexandrineand Cesarean. Radical critics count all of the Byzantine manuscripts as a variant. Sofor example, if there are 4,000 Byzantine manuscripts, by her count there are 4,000variants. If there is a difference in the word order in a specific verse in theByzantine, that adds another 4,000 variants, although the words are the same; onlytheir order in Greek differs. So, from only 1 difference in spelling and 1 variance inword order, we have 8,000 variants by her count, instead of just two! You begin tosee that her way of counting presents a distorted picture of the way things actuallyare.

How accurate is the text we have today? When scholars incorporate the principles of textual criticism, they can reproduce a text of the New Testament that is better than95% pure to what the originals said. A more conservative estimate comes fromPrinceton New Testament scholar, Bruce Metzger who writes that by far the greatestproportion of the text is virtually certain.(57) It is important to also note that anyunresolved differences do not change a single doctrine of the Christian faith.

f. Careless Readings

Many of her claims reflect a careless reading of the text. For example, she citesEusebius concerning Dionysius’ cl aims that others were adding and taking from hiswritings and says that this is proof that the Gospels were being tampered with!(58)In another example, she states, "In Acts we read that the first ‘Christians’ are foundat Antioch, even thought there was no canonical Gospel there until after 200CE."(59) However, this too is false. In Acts 11:26, we read, "The disciples werecalled Christians first at Antioch" [italics mine]; not that the "first ‘Christians’ werefound at Antioch" as Murdock asserts.(60) Moreover, her claim here that nocanonical Gospel was in Antioch until after A. D. 200 is likewise false. The apostolicfather, Ignatius, was the bishop of Antioch and wrote around A. D. 110 and shows astrong familiarity with Matthew’s Gospel. As Clayton Je fford, a biblical scholar whohas specialized in studies on the apostolic fathers, writes, "Because of the presence



of numerous parallels and apparent quotations from Matthew in Ignatius’s writings,it seems evident that Ignatius knew, and probably used, that gospel. An especiallyimportant consideration is the way in which he has used the gospel. The bishop didnot tend to use quotations from his source text, but rather made allusions toMatthean episodes and concepts. These became the point of contact for his ownarguments throughout the letters."(61) In other words, Ignatius’ familiarity withMatthew’s Gospel is evident in his use of material unique to Matthew and, therefore,not found in the other Gospels. One can see this in the following writings of Ignatius: To the Ephesians (14:2, cf. Matthew 12:33; 17:1, cf. Matthew 26:6-13),To the Trallians (11:1, cf. Matthew 15:13), To the Philadelphians (3:1, cf. Matthew15:13), To the Smyrnaeans (1:1, cf. Matthew 3:15; 6:1, cf. Matthew 19:12), ToPolycarp (2:2, cf. Matthew 10:16).

g. The Myth of Massive Martyrdom

Ms. Murdock claims that Christians were never martyred by the masses. She labelsit a "myth" that "the early Christians were gentle ‘lambs’ served up in large numbersas ‘martyrs for the faith’ by the d iabolical Romans."(62) Moreover, she claims thatthe accounts of massive martyrdom were the inventions of Christians in the 9thcentury.(63)

One of the main passages which support the position that many Christians died atthe hands of the Romans is found in the writings of the Roman historian, Tacitus (A.D. 55-120).(64) However, Murdock states that this passage is a forgery. Why? Sheargues that Tacitus "was born two decades after ‘the Savior’s’ alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers,they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events."(65) As discussedbelow with Josephus, this is a naïve view of how historical studies are conducted. If you have to be an eyewitness in order to give an accurate account of history, thenno one could write a text today providing a history of the American Civil War and,indeed, much of what we know historically would have to be discarded.

She claims that the "passage is an interpolation and forgery" because no one quotesit prior to the 15th century. Perhaps no one cited this passage because there wereno occasions when it would have been helpful. The overwhelming majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic, since it is not laudatory of Christians.(66) Ms. Murdock wants it both ways. She rejects the Josephus’ Antiquities 18:3 passage because it is so friendly towards Christ. However, sherejects Tacitus, even though he is hostile towards Christ. It seems that there isnothing that would convince her. Since there is no evidence of interpolation orforgery in this passage, Ms. Murdock’s position is entirely without merit. So, Tacitus’ writings stand as a testimony that Christians were being killed for their faith.

Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia (c. A. D. 61-113) likewise writes of his actionsagainst Christians. He interrogated Christians, asking if they were believers. If theyanswered, "yes," he asked them two more times, threatening to kill them if theyrefused to recant. If they continued their confession, he had them executed.(67) Of Pliny, Murdock states, "One of the pitifully few ‘references’ held up by Christians asevidence of Jesus’s existence is the letter to Trajan supposedly written by the

Roman historian Pliny the Younger. However, in this letter there is but one word thatis applicable, ‘Christians,’ and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also



suspected of the entire ‘document.’"(68)

Are Letter 96 of Pliny and the Emperor Trajan’s response forgeries as M urdocksuggests? Murdock provides no reasons to believe this. New Testament scholar,Robert Van Voorst says no.(69) The text of these letters is well-attested in themanuscripts and their authenticity is not disputed seriously by scholars. They werealso known by the time of Tertullian (A. D. 196-212). The prominent Oxfordhistorian A. N. Sherwin-White, who is not a Christian, has disposed of the fewsuggestions that never gained credence which claim that the letters were part orwholesale forgeries.

Is there any evidence that Christians of the first and second centuries were dying forbeing Christians? Following are some references in addition to Tacitus and Pliny,which support the position that people were killed for being Christians:

1. Shepherd of Hermas (Parable 9, section 28 [or ch 105]; Vision 3,section 1, verse 9-2:1 [or ch 9:9-10:1]; 5:2 [or ch 13:2])2. Melito of Sardis (cited by Eusebius, Ecc His, 4:26:3)3. Dionysius of Corinth (cited by Eusebius, Ecc His, 2:25:8)4. Hegesippus (cited by Eusebius, 3:32:3; 2:23:18; 4:22:4)5. Eusebius (Ecc His, 5:2:2-3; 1:26, 48; 2:25)6. Polycrates of Ephesus (Bishop of Ephesus) in his letter to Victorof Rome7. Josephus (Ant 20:200)8. Stephen (Acts 7:59-60)9. James (Acts 12:2)10. Antipas (Revelation 2:13)

Although the mass killing of Christians had not yet begun when the apostle Paulpenned his letters, he writes of how Christians were suffering in his day for beingChristians. To the Philippian church he wrote (c. A. D. 61), "To you it has beengranted fo r Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake"(Phil 1:29ff). Christians were suffering for their faith by the middle of the firstcentury.

Around the year 200, Tertullian mentioned Rome’s brutality towards Christiansincluding numerous executions by the Romans in his day. He wrote to the rulers of the Roman Empire saying, "The more often we are mown down by you, the more innumber we grow; the blood of Christians is seed."(70)

Ms. Murdock appeals to Origen’s statement in C ontra Celsus 3:8 where he writesthat the Christians who were killed "can be easily numbered." However, Origen’sstatement may also be interpreted to refer to the more prominent examples ("onspecial occasions"). These would be people like Polycarp, Ignatius, and others. It isimportant to remember that Murdock’s possible interpretation of one statement inOrigen does not nullify the multiply attested and certain accounts of many.

4. Non-biblical Sources who mention Jesus:

According to Murdock, "There are basically no non-biblical references to a historicalJesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus’ purported



advent."(71) Most historians of antiquity disagree with this claim, acknowledging anumber of non-biblical sources, Christian and non-Christian alike, who mentionJesus in their writings. Let’s look at two non -Christian sources on whom Murdockcomments.

a. Josephus. "[I]n the entire works of the [sic] Josephus, which constitute manyvolumes of great detail encompassing centuries of history, there is no mention of Paul or the Christians, and there are only two brief paragraphs that purport to referto Jesus. Although much has been made of these ‘references,’ they have beendismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries, as have been thosereferring to John the Baptist and James, ‘brother of Jesus.’"(72) This is a bigstatement by Ms. Murdock who does not provide any reasons as to why thesepassages should be rejected.

Murdock's claim is grossly naïve as well as f alse. Josephus’ passage on John theBaptist(73) is regarded as authentic and is hardly disputed by scholars. EdwinYamauchi, Professor of History at Miami University writes, "No scholar hasquestioned the authenticity of this passage, though there are some differencesbetween Josephus's account and that in the Gospels . . ."(74) New Testamentscholar, Robert Van Voorst of Western Theological Seminary likewise comments thatthe passage by Josephus on John the Baptist is "held to be undoubtedly genuine bymost interpreters"(75) and that "scholars also hold [it] to be independent of theNew Testament."(76) John Meier, professor of New Testament at The CatholicUniversity of America writes that Josephus' mentioning of John the Baptist is"accepted as authentic by almost all scholars" and that it "is simply inconceivable asthe work of a Christian of any period."(77) Jewish scholar, Louis Feldman of YeshivaUniversity and perhaps the most prominent expert on Josephus comments on thispassage: "There can be little doubt as to the genuineness of Josephus’ passageabout John the Baptist."(78) Therefore, Murdock's comment that this passage has"been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries" isdemonstrably false.

The reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage are: (a) The style andvocabulary belong to Josephus. (b) If a subsequent Christian editor added thepassage, we would expect a comment about John's preaching regarding the Messiahwho was Jesus. (c) An interpolator would most likely not have included thediscrepancy between the Gospels and Josephus in terms of the reason John wasexecuted.

What about Josephus' comments on James, the brother of Jesus in a separatepassage?(79) Is this the work of an ancient Christian editor who added them? Havethese likewise "been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike asforgeries" as Murdock claims?

Among the reasons for accepting the passage as authentic by Josephus are: (a) aChristian editor would have used complimentary language to describe James andmore laudatory language referring to Jesus.(80) (b) The main point Josephus isattempting to make is that Ananus was deposed because of his illegal executions of several that included James. However, James is mentioned simply in passing. (c)

Josephus' account differs from other Christian accounts of the death of James.



Feldman writes, "The passage about James [Antiquities Book 20, Sections 197-200]has generally been accepted as authentic."(81) Elsewhere he mentions this text and"the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged."(82) AnotherJewish scholar, Zvi Baras, states that this passage "is considered authentic by mostscholars."(83) Yamauchi comments, "Few scholars have questioned the genuinenessof this passage."(84) Van Voorst writes, "The overwhelming majority of scholarsholds that the words 'the brother of Jesus called Christ' are authentic, as is theentire passage in which it is found."(85) Again, Murdock's claim is false and revealsthat she is either unfamiliar with scholarship on the subject or simply ignores it,since it fails to support her peculiar views.

Only one passage about Jesus in Josephus is disputed seriously by scholars. Thispassage is found in Book 18, Section 3 of Antiquities and is often referred to as theTestimonium Flavianum. A lot has been written on this passage within scholarship.In his book, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980, Feldman lists 87scholarly discussions on this passage during that time period.(86) This passagetypically reads as follows:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men as receive the truthwith pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of theGentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principalmen amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the firstdid not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divineprophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerninghim; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Most scholars reject a wholesale acceptance of this passage. Origin was an earlyChurch father and indicated that Josephus was not a Christian.(87) Therefore, itwould be odd that a non-Christian Jew would make statements like Jesus was "awise man, if it be lawful to call him a man", "He was the Christ", and "he appearedto them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and tenthousand other wonderful things concerning him."

While debate continues on this fascinating passage, most scholars believe that amajority of the passage is Josephus, because (a) the term, "wise man" is typical forJosephus and less than we would expect from a Christian editor,(88) (b) the stylebelongs to Josephus,(89) (c) the Greek word for tribe is not a typical Christianexpression.(90) Many scholars today accept that this passage was includedoriginally by Josephus with the exceptions of the three additions that appear to bethe result of a subsequent Christian editor sometime during the second and earlyfourth centuries. Van Voorst writes, "In sum, Josephus has given us in two passagessomething unique among all ancient non-Christian witnesses to Jesus: a carefullyneutral, highly accurate and perhaps independent witness to Jesus, a wise manwhom his persistent followers called ‘the Christ.’"(91) Yamauchi comments,"Josephus knew that Jesus was the brother of James, the martyred leader of thechurch in Jerusalem, and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wideand lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at theinstigation of some of the Jewish leaders."(92) Feldman comments, "I believe that

the Josephus passage about Jesus was partly interpolated by Christians. I agreewith John P.Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 60-61 that



three passages have been interpolated: if indeed one should call him a man; he wasthe Messiah; and for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as thedivine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things abouthim."(93) Zvi Baras writes that the "more plausible" position is "accepting parts of the passage and rejecting others."(94) Morton Smith, professor emeritus of ancienthistory at Columbia University, concludes that Josephus certainly mentions Jesus inthis passage but is pessimistic that the original can be reconstructed.(95)

In conclusion, the majority of scholars accept that Josephus certainly mentionsJesus on two occasions and that his account of John the Baptist is authentic. As VanVoorst writes, "[Josephus’] implicit affirmation of the existen ce of Jesus has been,and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that extra-biblicalevidence is not [proving] on this point." Thus again, Ms. Murdock has made a claimwhich anyone doing legitimate research on the subject would know to be false.

b. Tacitus. Ms. Murdock asserts that Tacitus cannot be regarded as a source whoconfirms the existence of Jesus. Why? Tacitus wasn’t born until about 25 years afterJesus and so all of his information is second hand.(96) This type of thinking thoughis medieval. It is literally how people in the Middle Ages did historical studies, whenonly an eyewitness counted! If we conducted historical inquiry that way today, wecould know very little about history.

For example, most of what we know about Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustuscomes from the ancient Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius. However, Tacitusand Suetonius are even more removed from Julius and Augustus than they werefrom Jesus. So if we listened to Ms. Murdock, no one could know anything aboutthese two most famous Roman Caesars. In fact, no one today could write a historyof the American Civil War, since it would by no means be first hand knowledge. Butwe can write an accurate history of the Civil War, since there are letters, documents,and the written testimonies of those who were there. Tacitus and Suetonius were alot closer to the events they write about than we are to the American Civil War.

John Meier is a non-evangelical critical scholar. In his book, A Marginal Jew:Rethinking The Historical Jesus , Meier states, "despite some feeble attempts to showthat this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviouslygenuine. Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible."(97) Similarly,in his book, Jesus Outside the New Testament, Robert Van Voorst writes that only afew words in the text are generally disputed, such as Tacitus’ spelling of the word"Crestians" instead of "Christians," and his naming Pilate as "procurator" instead of the more accurate "prefect." He writes that on the basis of these a few have claimedthat the entire passage is the result of a subsequent Christian editor, but calls this"pure speculation."(98) The differences are easily reconciled. Moreover, the style of the text definitely belongs to Tacitus. Pagan editors did not express themselves inthe Latin that Tacitus uses(99) and a Christian editor would not have had Tacituscall Christianity a "deadly superstition." Besides all of this, the passage fits well inthe context. Tacitus was a Roman Governor and could have had knowledge of pastevents concerning the Roman Empire. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt thatTacitus mentions Jesus as an historical person and His crucifixion by Pilate as an

historical event.



c. Why was Jesus seemingly overlooked by many secular writers? Murdockwrites, "If we were to take away all the miraculous events surrounding the story of Jesus to reveal a human, we would certainly find no one who could have garneredhuge crowds around him because of his preaching. And the fact is that this crowd-drawing preacher finds his place in ‘history’ only in the New Testament, completelyoverlooked by the dozens of historians of his day, an era considered one of the bestdocumented in history."(100)

The siege and overthrow of the Jewish zealots at Masada is attested alone byJosephus and archaeology. However, it is not mentioned by a single existing Romanhistorian. In fact, it is not even mentioned in Jewish writings like the Talmud.Ancient writers sometimes chose to omit big events. And perhaps Jesus wasmentioned in other records that have since been lost.

I challenge Ms. Murdock to name someone other than Jesus who lived in the firstcentury (e.g., Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, etc.), who is mentioned by 17 writers whodo not share his convictions, and who write within 150 years of his life. No firstcentury person was as well attested as Jesus.

d. Was Jesus’ message new?

Was Jesus’ message of salvation borrowed from earlier religions? In his book, TheWorld Religions, J. N. D. Anderson lists some offshoots where a religious sectembraces a few of the same thoughts presented in Christianity.(101) However, forthe most part, Christianity is unique in its major areas:

1. Salvation by Grace (unmerited favor of God)

2. Atonement (God paid the price for us)

3. Jesus is only founder of a major world religion about whom deity is claimed in thefirst generation afterwards.

4. Resurrection. Pagan claims to a resurrection rarely concern historical persons,and they are without any evidence. In fact, as Christian philosopher/historian GaryHabermas who has specialized in resurrection studies states in an article entitled"Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions" that there is not a single clearparallel account of a dying and rising god which precedes Christianity and that thefirst does not appear until a minimum of 100 years after Jesus.(102) As professorEdwin Yamauchi of Miami University who has specialized in ancient religions writes,". . . we find that early accounts attribute miracles only to Jesus."(103) Murdockmentions the resurrections of Buddha, Krishna, and Osirus. We have seen that theexperts in Buddhism and Hinduism say that this is absolute nonsense and reflects noknowledge of these two religions, contrary to her claims to be an expert in them.Regarding Osirus, it is not a clear parallel account at all. The story is that Osirus waskilled by his brother who chopped him into 14 pieces and scattered him throughoutEgypt. The Egyptian goddess, Isis, began collecting the parts and assembling themback together. Unfortunately, she was only able to find 13 of the 14 pieces. And shenever brought him back to life on earth, but gave him position as god of themummies or of the netherworld. So the picture we get of Osirus is of this guy whodoesn’t have all of his parts and who maintains a shadowy existence as god of the



dead. As my friend Chris Clayton puts it, Os irus’ coming back to life wasn’t aresurrection, but a zombification!

5. Masonry

Jack Harris is an expert on Freemasonry. Before becoming a Christian in the 1970s,he went through the ranks of York Rite Masonry, the alleged "Christian" branch, andbecame a worshipful master. He also has a degree in Biblical Studies. These showthat Mr. Harris is well acquainted with Masonic views and interpretations as well asthe Bible. I asked Mr. Harris about the statements Ms. Murdock made regardingFreemasonry. Below are six comments from Murdock regarding Freemasonry. Harrisresponded to the first four. These are in parenthesis.

1. The four canonical gospels represent the "‘four corners of the world.’ In reality,this comment is Masonic, and these texts represent the four books of magic of theEgyptian Ritual . . ."(104) (False)

2. The book of Job, "is a complete description of the Masonic ceremonies or EgyptianMasonry, or trial of the dead by Osiris . . ."(105) (False)

3. Peter "the Rock" and his keys are Masonic symbols.(106) (False)

4. "[T]he ‘carpenter’ label . . . is a Masonic designation, reflecting the sun’s role asthe great builder."(107) (False)

5. "As Nazarenes, Jesus and Paul were Masons as well." This is quite an interestingcomment, since Murdock believes Jesus and Paul to be mythical figures! In addition,Paul was from Tarsus, not Nazareth.

6. "The historian Josephus certainly knew of the Masons and allegedly was one . .."(108)

Mr. Harris stated that every one of her assertions regarding Freemasonry are wrong.Moreover, he stated that Masonry began, as we know it, in A. D. 1717.(109) So it isimpossible that these alleged conspirators in antiquity who allegedly made up theChristian story were Masons! So much for Josephus taking the oaths of the thirddegree!(110)

Furthermore, if the writers of the New Testament were Masons, why did they includeteachings that go against Freemasonry such as that Christianity is the only way toheaven and that one should not take oaths? Freemasonry is filled with oaths andteaches the doctrine of universalism, that there are many ways to God. Ms. Murdockseems to want to see astrology in everything and a Mason hiding behind everycorner throughout history.

6. Poor Scholarship

On the home page of her web site, Ms. Murdock claims to be a scholar.(111) If anything has become apparent while we have briefly examined her book, The ChristConspiracy, it is that precisely just the opposite is true.





Dr. Robert Price is far from being a Christian. Rather, he is a prominent atheist anda member of the Jesus Seminar who reviewed Ms. Murdock’s book. After referri ng toit as "sophomoric," Price comments,

She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down hersources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicateddata open to many interpretations. One of the most intriguing claims maderepeatedly in these books is that among the mythical predecessors of Jesus as acrucified god were the Buddha, the blue-skinned Krishna, and Dionysus. Is thereany basis to these claims, which Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again, shedoes not explain where they come from, much less why no available book onBuddha, Krishna, or Dionysus contains a crucifixion account. . . . When Murdockspeaks of the ‘Christ Conspiracy,’ she means it. She really believes that ‘people gottog ether and cooked up’ early Christianity like a network sitcom. And who werethese conspirators? The, er, Masons (pp. 334 ff.). It is remarkable how and wheresome people’s historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt. But it gets much,much weirder than that. We start, in the last chapters, reading bits and piecesdrawn from James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu;Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchen, advocate of flyingsaucers in ancient Akkadia; and of course all that stuff about the maps of theancient sea kings. The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled)eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, manyoutright looney.(123)

7. Conclusion

Ms. Murdock claims that the reason she and her sources are ignored by scholars isbecause her "arguments have been too intelligent and knifelike to do away with"and have "no doubt [been] fearfully suppressed because they are somewhatirrefutable."(124) Murdock would have us all believe that prominent scholars withinNew Testament criticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, astronomy, history, andFreemasonry are all intellectual lightweights compared to herself and who eithercannot appreciate her arguments or suppress them for reasons untold.

However, it is abundantly clear why scholars have ignored and turned their noses upat her views. The reason for the lack any positive acknowledgment from scholars is:

a. Almost all of her sources are secondary and are themselves wrong on manyoccasions.

b. A large number of her sources are not scholars.

c. She makes wild claims without supporting them.

d. Her claim that astrology permeates the Bible such as that the 12 tribes of Israeland the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac is so erroneous that aProfessor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago whospecializes in ancient practices in astronomy referred to her as "nutty."

e. Her claim that Krishna represents a dying and rising god prior to Christianity is somistaken that the Professor of Hindu Studies at Rutgers said that this claim is



"absolute and complete nonsense," that "she doesn’t know what she’s talkingabout," and that she should take a religion 101 course before making these kind of claims.

f. Her claim that many similarities exist between Buddha and Jesus elicited a similarresponse from the Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers who specializes inBuddhism: "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is verydangerous to spread misinformation like this. . . . Please ask [her] to take a basiccourse in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things shedoes not know."

g. Indeed, even an atheist scholar, Bob Price called her book "sophomoric." He alsocommented that her book is "a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, somefew of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney."

One thing you have to grant Ms. Murdock; she is consistent.(125) If you enjoyextreme and unsubstantiated views with an attitude, you will like The ChristConspiracy. If you appreciate anything you can get your hands on that insultsChristianity, irrespective of the quality of the arguments and the data, you will relishThe Christ Conspiracy. But in terms of this book being a responsible account of theorigin of Christianity, it is unsalvageable.

1. Murdock responded to this paper with "A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's 'Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy.'" You may read this rebuttal by clicking on the followinghyperlink: Acharya's Responds to Licona's Rebuttal.

2. Licona replied to Acharya's rebuttal with another paper and may be read by clicking on the following hyperlink: "Licona Replies to Acharya: Part 2"

Footnotes. . .

1. See the review by Robert M. Price, "Aquarian Skeptic" in Free Inquiry, Vol. 21,No. 3 (Amherst: The Council for Secular Humanism, 2001), pp. 66-67. For Dr.Price’s comments, see sections 6, "Poor Scholarship," of this paper.2. Ibid., p. 66.3. Acharya S. The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (Kempton:Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999), pp. 151-152.4. Ibid., p. 79, 146, 164, 224, 360.5. Personal email correspondence on 9/18/01.6. Personal email correspondence on 9/19/01.7. Jay Pasachoff is the Director of Hopkins Observatory, Chair of the Department of Astronomy at Williams College, Encarta expert on astronomy, and a member of theInternational Astronomical Union. In a 9/25/01 personal email correspondence hewrote, "The exact divisions into 88 constellations covering 100% of the sky wasadopted by the International Astronomical Union in 1928 and codified in 1930. Butthe constellation shapes are irregular, and the 12 zodiacal constellations are notexactly 30 degrees each. The sun actually travels through parts of 13 constellations

http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm



http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=37







each year." For more information pertinent to this topic, the reader is referred to JayPasachoff’s Field Guide To The Stars And Planets (Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany, 1999).8. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 166.9. Ibid., pp. 141-142.10. Ibid., p. 142.11. This dating of Genesis is evangelical. Other datings vary greatly. Do we knowwith certainty that the Israelites existed during this time? Yes. A memorial stelereferred to as "the Israel Stele" has been found in Egypt and dates back to justbefore 1,200 BC. The inscription on it reads how Merneptah, the last Pharaoh of Dynasty 19 of the New Kingdom Period, had warred against and defeated somepeoples. He mentions the Israelites and indicated that they were a large people whowere spread out by planning. See Amihai Mazar. Archaeology of the Land of theBible, 10,000-586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1992),p. 234, 354.12. In a personal email correspondence, astronomer Jay Pasachoff writes, "Many of the constellations were referred to in Homer in the 9th century BC. The Babyloniansdivided the zodiac into 12 constellations in the 5th c. BC."13. Ibid., p. 136. The Isaiah reference is Isaiah 47:12-13.14. See for example, Isaiah 47:13-14 and Ezekiel 8:14-18.15. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 139.16. See Genesis 31:30, 34-35.17. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 132.18. Willem A. VanGemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old TestamentTheology & Exegesis, Vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), p.332. Harris, Archer, Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,Volume 1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), p. 18.19. In a personal telephone conversation 9/18/01.20. The closest is Jeremiah 10:2 which refers to comets, meteors, and eclipses [cf.Is 7:11]. However, God tells Jeremiah not to be alarmed by these. The popularity of the Septuagint (LXX) is noteworthy. Of the 330 times the Old Testament is quotedin the New Testament, the majority of the quotations are from the Septuagint.21. At the time of the writing of this paper, the book is not published. However,excerpts from the book may be found on her web site. Seewww.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm for her attempt to establish that Krishnawas crucified in Hindu legend.22. In a personal telephone conversation 9/6/01.23. Ibid.

24. At the time of the writing of this paper (11/01), the book is not published.However, excerpts from the book may be found on her web site. Seewww.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm for her attempt to establish that Krishnawas crucified in Hindu legend. See page 2 of the article.25. In a personal telephone conversation 9/6/01.26. The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 116-117.27. Personal email correspondence on 9/20/01. The email is here cited. It includesMurdock’s claim and Bryant’s comments: 1) Krishna was born of the Virgin Devakior "Divine One" on 12/25. "Yes. This is true. She was transmitted through the mindof Vasudeva." 2) His earthly father was a carpenter, who was off in the city payingtax while Krishna was born. "He was a cowherd chief. And he was, indeed, off in the

city paying taxes, although this was just after Krishna was born." 3) His birth wassignaled by a star in the east and attended by angels and shepherds, at which time



he was presented with spices. "Partially. The astrological configurations in generalwere very auspicious (but no mention of a specific star in the East). There were theIndian equivalent of angels (celestial beings who sing and play instruments). Noshepherds -- but cowherds were there. No spices, but the heavenly hosts raineddown flowers." 4) The heavenly hosts danced and sang at his birth. "Yes." 5) He waspersecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. "Yes. Thisis very similar to Herod. The local king heard a divine voice stating that someonewho was to be his death was to take birth from Devaki, Krishna's mother. So hekilled all the infants who had been recently born in the entire area." 6) Krishna wasanointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed. "Not quite. He wasoffered fragrant ointments by a hunchback woman, after which he healed her." 7)He is depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent. "He subdued a 1000headed serpent who has polluted the local river by dancing on its head with hisfeet." 8) He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, thedeaf and the blind. "This is phrased in rather New Testament type terms, butKrishna did heal people and certainly performed many miracles." 9) Krishna usedparables to teach the people about charity and love, and he lived poor and he lovedthe poor. "He didn't live particularly poorly, although his childhood was spentamongst the cowherd community. He certainly taught, although not specifically inparables. Krishna devotion is certainly available to the poor, and there arestatements which directly favour them." 10) He castigated the clergy, charging themwith ambition and hypocrisy. "Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance.Well.... he criticized the ritualistic brahmanas who were so absorbed in their ritesthey did not recognise him." 11) Krishna’s "beloved disciple" was Arjuna (John)."Nothing to do with John." 12) He was transfigured in front of his disciples. "No."13) He gave his disciples the ability to work miracles. "He didn;t have disciples,exacly, but devotees. Some could perform supernormal things." 14) His path was"strewn with branches." "No." 15) In some traditions he died on a tree or wascrucified between two thieves. "No." 16) Krishna was killed around the age of 30,and the sun darkened at his death. "I think he was 150. Inauspicious astrologicalomens erupted at his death." 17) He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven inthe sight of all men. "He ascended to his abode in his selfsame body, although menonly saw part of his ascent." 18) He was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in hisfeet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing. "No." 19) Krishna is the lionof the tribe of Saki. "Not Saki. Sura, or Yadu, are two of the dynasties with which heis associated." 20) He was called the "Shepherd God" and considered the"Redeemer," "Firstborn," "Sin-Bearer," "Liberator," "Universal Word." "No to the first(but cowherd god, OK), OK to the rest." 21) He was deemed the "Son of God" and

"our Lord and Savior," who came to earth to die for man's salvation. "No." 22) Hewas the second person of the Trinity. "No." 23) His disciples purportedly bestowedupon him the title "Jezeus," or "Jeseus," meaning "pure essence." "No."24) Krishna is to return to judge the dead, riding on a white horse, and to do battlewith the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth. "A future incarnation is Kalki,who will ride a white horse and kill allthe demons in the future."28. Benjamin Walker, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism, Vol. 1(New York: Praeger, 1983), pp. 240-241.29. Personal email correspondence on 10/18/01.30. See as examples, the article on the UCLA web site:

www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/texts/Puranas.html; the short descriptionof the Harivamsa provided by the San Diego Museum of Art:



www.sdmart.org/exhibition-binney-literature.html, and the Encyclopedia BritannicaIntermediate: http://search.ebi.eb.com/ebi/article/0,6101,34678,00.html.31. David V. Mason. Personal email correspondence on 11/6/01.32. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 118.33. Personal email correspondence on 9/20/01. I also asked Dr. Bryant regardingthe historical evidence for Krishna as an historical rather than mythical figure. Heresponded that we know that people were worshipping Krishna as god in the fifthcentury (maybe sixth century) B. C. However, there is nothing more than that interms of evidence. Traditional sources place him 3,128 B .C. or about 2,500 yearsbefore our oldest historical evidence for him appears. This is quite different than thestrong evidence we have for Jesus as an historical person.34. The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 109-110.35. I have numbered these for the reader’s convenience. They correspond withMurdock’s list on pages 109 -110, although she does not number them. I have listedMurdock’s claim followed by Dr. Yu’s comments. Occasionally, I have addedcomments found in brackets. (1) Murdock: "Buddha was born on December 25 of the virgin Maya, a nd his birth was attended by a ‘Star of Announcement,’ wise menand angels singing heavenly songs." Yu: "Queen Maya was Buddha's mother but shewas declared to be a virgin. Rather, she conceived the Buddha after dreaming awhite elephant entering her right side in the dream. Buddha was born on the 8thday of the lunar 4th month." (2) Murdock: "At his birth, he was pronounced ruler of the world and presented with ‘costly jewels and precious substances.’" Yu: "At birthhe took seven steps and declared that this would be his last birth and he would bethe most honored one in the world." (4) Murdock: "Buddha was of royal lineage."Yu: "Buddha was a prince, the son of a king of a small kingdom in northern India orNepal (his birthplace, Lumbini, has been claimed by both Nepal and India as beinglocated in their territory." (6) Murdock: "He crushed a serpent’s head (as wastraditionally said of Jesus) and was tempted by Mara, the ‘Evil One,’ when fasting."Yu: "Mara tempted him before his enlightenment but was defeated." (10) Murdock:"His followers were obliged to take vows of poverty and to renounce the world." Yu:"His followers were monks who lived in monasteries and observed chastity and non-attachment." (14) Murdock: "Buddha ascended bodily to Nirvana or ‘heaven.’" Yu:"When he died, his body was cremated. He was not reborn again but said to be inNirvana." [This is not even close to bodily resurrection as Murdock would hope.](15) Murdock: "He was called ‘Lord,’ ‘Master,’ the ‘Light of the World,’ ‘God of gods,’

‘Father of the World,’ ‘Almighty and All -knowing Ruler,’ ‘Redeemer of All,’ ‘Holy One,’ the ‘Author of Happiness,’ ‘Possessor of All,’ the ‘Omnipotent,’ the ‘Supreme being,’ the ‘Eternal One.’" Yu: "He is called Lord and Tathagata (‘Thus Come’)." (18)

Murdock: "Buddha is to return ‘in the latter days’ to restore order and to judge thedead.’" Yu: "The Future Buddha called Maitreya ("The Friendly One") will be born asa human in the future just as the Buddha some 2500 years ago and revive thereligion and bring peace to the world." As you can readily see, Murdock mixestradition with that which is not a part of Buddhist tradition. Some similarities arevery weak as Dr. Yu points out. Others are quite unimpressive (e. g., 4, 10, thatboth are called "Lord" in 15).36. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 25.37. Justin, First Apology, chapter 66.38. Murdock and her sources are evidently unaware of this passage in Justin. For inher article "The ‘Historical’ Jesus", an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of

God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled located athttp://truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm, she notes the existence of the "Memoirs



of the apostles" mentioned by Justin, but claims that it "is a single book by that title,not a reference to several ‘memoirs’ or apostolic gospels" (p. 8).39. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 100-107.40. Acts 17:1-3.41. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 25.42. Ibid., p. 26.43. These datings are from Clayton N. Jeford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: AnIntroduction (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996) and Lightfoot, Harmer,Holmes, eds. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English translations of TheirWritings, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992).44. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 26.45. Bruce Manning Me tzger. The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission,Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 36-41.46. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 37.47. Ibid., p. 38. The passage in Eusebius is from Ecclesiastical History, Book 4,Chapter 6.48. Ibid., p. 33.49 Ibid., p. 34.50. Clement of Rome. To the Corinthians 5; Polycarp. To the Philippians 9:2.51. Clement of Rome. To the Corinthians 5; Ignatius. To the Romans 4:3. Polycarpmay also be referring to the apostolic status in his letter To the Philippians 12:1. Inthis verse, he quotes from Ephesians two times and refers to it as "SacredScripture." If indeed Paul wrote Ephesians, Polycarp is placing his authority on thehighest level.52. Polycarp. To the Philippians 3:2.53. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 132.54. Origen. De Principiis Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 19.55. Another example embarrassing for Murdock is on pp. 70-71 where she quotes T.W. Doane’s citing of Origen on Celsus who "jeers at the fact that ignorant men wereallowed to preach, and says that ‘weavers, tailors, fullers, and the most illiterate andrustic fellows,’ were set up to teach strange paradoxes. ‘They openly declared thatnone but the ignorant (were) fit disciples for the God they worshiped,’ and that oneof th eir rules was, ‘let no man that is learned come among us.’" The references arefrom Origen’s Contra Celsus, Book 3. The first reference to "weavers, tailors . . ." isfrom chapter 56 and the latter from chapter 44. In chapter 56, Origen answersCelsus’ cla ims by asking him to provide examples that this is the case and adds,"But he will not be able to make good any such charge against us." In chapter 44,Origen answers Celsus, "although some of them [i.e., Christians] are simple and

ignorant, they do not speak so shamelessly as he alleges." Again, if Ms. Murdockhad checked her source, she would have found that he was gravely mistaken just asCelsus was.56. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 41.57. See his comments in The Greek New Testament, Third Edition (Stuttgart: UnitedBible Societies, 1983), pp. xii-xiii.58. Ibid., pp. 27-28.59. Ibid., p. 46.60. This is the only occurrence of the term "Christians" in the New Testament. Theword occurs in the singular in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16.61. Clayton N. Jefford. Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Peabody:

Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996), p. 67.62. Ibid., p. 5.



63. Ibid.64. Cornelius Tacitus. Annals 15:44.65. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.66. See section below on Tacitus, "Non-biblical Sources who mention Jesus."67. Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Letters, Book 10, Letter 96.68. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.69. Robert E. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to theAncient Evidence (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000),p. 27 citing A. N. Sherwin-White in The Letters of Pliny (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966),pp. 691-692.70. Tertullian. Part First, Apology, chapter 50.71. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 49.72. Ibid., p. 50.73. Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Sections 116-119.74. See the chapter by Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament:What is the Evidence?" in Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus UnderFire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995, p. 212.75. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 98.76. Ibid., p. 103.77. John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One(New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 66.78. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, The Bible, and History(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p. 429.79. Josephus. Book 20, Section 200.80. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 83-84. Louis H. Feldman,translator. Josephus IX, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 496.81. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, p. 434.82. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), p. 56.83. Ibid. p. 341.84. Yamacuhi, "Jesus and the Scriptures," p. 53.85. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 83.86. Elsewhere Feldman states that he has "noted more than a hundred discussion of this topic during the past fifty years" (Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, p. 55).87. Origen. Commentary on Mathew (See his comment on Matthew 10:17) andContra Celsus 1:47.88. Van Voorst, p. 88. He adds, "Josephus says the same about Solomon (Ant.18.5.2 §53) and Daniel (Ant. 10.11.2 §237), and something similar about John the

Baptizer, whom he calls ‘ a good man’ (Ant. 18 .5.2 §116-9)." Yamauchi, JesusUnder Fire, p. 213.89. Meier, p. 62. Van Voorst, p. 90. Yamauchi, ibid., p. 213.90. fu'lon. Van Voorst, pp. 91-92. Yamauchi, ibid., p. 213.91. Van Voorst, pp. 103-104.92. Yamauchi, ibid., pp. 213-214.93. In a personal email correspondence on 8/28/01.94. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, p. 339.95. " . . . Josephus’ mention of Jesus (A XVIII, 63f.) has been so much corruptedthat no attempted reconstruction of the original can be relied on. At most thedescription, ‘a doer of amazing works,’ can be salvaged" (Ibid., p. 252).

96. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.97. Meier. p. 90.



98. Van Voorst, pp. 42-43, note 60.99. Tacitus had a unique style that included an economy of words. He was not proneto use redundant phrases within a sentence, but made his words count in otherphrases if possible. Ibid., p. 43.100. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 19.101. Sir Norman Anderson. Christianity and World Religions (Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press, 1984), chapters 1-3.102. Gary R. Habermas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions" in Journalof Religious Studies, 25, 1989.103. Edwin Yamauchi. Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Muhammed (DownersGrove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p. 40.104. Ibid., p. 35.105. Ibid., p. 134.106. Ibid., p. 344.107. Ibid.108. Ibid., p. 345.109. When Freemasonry started in the 18th century, two men, James Anderson andJohn Desaguiliers, used the operative tools of the craft to represent the speculativescience of the lodge and assigned them moral truths. For example, the gavel breaksoff the superfluities of life (i.e., sin). In antiquity, master masons were given apassword so that they could identify themselves to other master masons in othercountries in order to get work there. Passwords and handshakes were used for thispurpose. This was later adopted into the lodge.110. A personal conversation with Jack Harris on 9/21/01. One may find moreinformation on the origins and meanings behind Masonic rituals in Jack Harris,Freemasonry: The Invisible Cult In Our Midst.111. www.truthbeknown.com.112. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 3.113. Ibid., pp. 36-37.114. Ibid., pp. 40-41.115. www.anthropress.org/AboutRudolf.htm116. One example of this is her comment on Tertullian that he believes because it is"shameful", "absurd", and "impossible" (The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 24-25).However, if she had read Tertullian in context (Tertullian, On The Flesh Of Christ,chapters 4-5), she would have known that he was speaking sarcastically in responseto Marcion’s vi ews and that her source, T. W. Doane, took him out of context.117. Ibid., p. 39.118. Ibid., p. 46.

119. Ibid., p. 39.120. Ibid., p. 45.121. www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=gospel122. This can be confirmed by any lexicon of Koiné Greek.123. Free Inquiry, Summer 2001, pp. 66-67.124. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 21.125. This comment from Old Testament scholar, Richard Patterson.



A Refutation of Acharya S's Book "The Christ Conspiracy":Pt 2

Dear Ms. Murdock, An answer to your rebuttal titled, “A Rebuttal to

Mike Licona's „Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy ” Mike Licona

Thank you for emailing me your brief rebuttal to my paper on your book. I have also reviewed“A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's „Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy ” on your web site. Since thelatter and more formal involves greater detail than your email, this reply shall be directed towardsthe later. Despite your references to me as a “used -religion salesman” and a “shallow apologist,”I ll confine my reply to addressing the issues you have raised. I have listed these in the order youpresent them in your rebuttal. You may also find this paper as well as my initial critique of TheChrist Conspiracy at www.risenjesus.com/acharya-s.html . Personal Attack:I am sorry that you interpret my paper as an attempt to attack your credibility. In academia, whenyou make an assertion, especially one as peculiar as your own, you should be prepared forunfavorable responses. The criticisms of others are not attempts to attack you personally. Ratherthey have drawn attention to the historical criterion you utilize in order to establish a point.You claim that in my critique of The Christ Conspiracy, I constantly misrepresent statementsfrom your book and web site in order to make you look ridiculous. Fortunately, you haveprovided a few instances where you believe I have done this. We will look at these as they arisethroughout this examination of your rebuttal and learn whether my critique stands.It seems to me that the difference between your method and my own is that, as a general practiceemployed throughout your book, you make an assertion and back it up by quoting several otherswho have made the same assertion, many of whom I consider questionable as scholarly sourcesand several are demonstrably wrong. As I stated in my paper, making an assertion and quotingthose who agree with you is a long way from establishing your point. You must also providereasons. Now I will grant that you do this on occasion. However, as we observed with yourcomparisons of Krishna and Buddha with Jesus, not only are you certainly incorrect, but we areleft asking the question as does skeptic Robert Price, “Is there any basis to these claims, whichMurdock just drops like a ton of bricks ? Again she does not explain where they come from . . .”I am sorry that you do not like my description of you as an “astrologer.” I accept your reasoningfor rejecting that title and I am happy to change my description to “a skeptic with an interest inmythology .” I have adjusted my initial paper accordingly.

Astrology:In your attempts to show that Judaism was strongly influenced by astrology (e.g., the 12 tribes of Israel represent the 12 signs of the zodiac), you endeavor to establish that the zodiac goes back much earlier than accepted by the majority of scholars. You state that “the Babylonians and thepriestly caste of Chaldeans were expert astrologers centuries to millennia prior to the Christianera-- denying that fact is beyond ridiculous! [ital. mine] But it does reveal the depth of dishonestyneeded in order to shore up fables.” [1] In support, you quote from the writings of Robert Graves,Walter Maunder, and Edwin Krupp . In my initial paper, I stated that “the Babylonians made the divis ions in the fifth century B.C. [2]If this dating is correct, reading astrology into the twelve tribes is anachronistic, since Genesiswas written approximately 1,000 B.C. and contains the story of the 12 tribes of Israel which

would have occurred even ear lier.” [3] Please show us where is “the dishonesty needed in order to shore up fables” of which you accuse me. Ms. Murdock, throwing unfounded accusations

http://www.risenjesus.com/acharya-s.html






against others who disagree with you is an easy task. Research integrity is much more difficultand respected by others.I emailed your comments on astrology and your citing of Graves, Maunder, and Krupp toProfessor Nowel Swerdlow of the University of Chicago. If you will recall, Professor Swerdlowis the Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics and has specialized in the study of how those inantiquity through the 17 th century viewed the skies. I received this reply from him:

I read through the passage you sent me and it is so filled with errors about ancientastronomy and astrology that one barely knows where to begin. She simply repeats a lotof nonsense that is not taken seriously by any competent historian of ancient astronomyand astrology. And all she can do is quote modern writers, some of them verymisinformed, and she seems to have no understanding of her own of the ancientevidence. What she writes is not history, but mere citation of authority. That may be allright in theology, but not in history. I will just add a few specific comments about herremarks:In truth no one knows the origin of the zodiac. Claims to the contrary are nothing more

than speculation unsupported by evidence, as in her citation of Robert Graves sderivation from Gilgamesh, which is pretty and ingenious, qualities found in all of Graves s work, which is always fun to rea d, but is not supported by ancient evidence. Noone knows when the zodiacal constellations originated, but it is not as early as the thirdmillennium BC. And while there were constellations of some sort at that date, little isknown of them and there is no evidence for a group along the ecliptic, that is, thezodiacal constellations. There is certainly nothing in Aratus which indicates that theoriginal zodiac existed in the late third millennium BC as she claims. Ask her to producethe passage.Nor is there a scrap of evidence for knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes beforeHipparchus (2 nd century BC). Even for Hipparchus it was just one of different possible

explanations for why distances of bright stars from the equinoxes did not seem to beconstant, using observations of his own compared with those of Timocharis andAristyllus in the early third century, evidently the earliest he had that were applicable tothis. Much has been made in recent years of an early date for the equinox in Taurus,meaning among the stars of the constellation Taurus. But again there is no ancientevidence for this, and citing references to a bull is not evidence. Taurus is often referredto as a sign of spring, but this does not mean that the equinox is located among its stars,only that the sun is in Taurus in the spring, which is obviously true but trivial. There arealso ancient sources, as referred to by Varro, that take the midpoint of Taurus as thebeginning of summer, with Taurus here considered as a sign of thirty degrees. Does thismean that the summer solstice is located in Taurus? No, just that there is variation inrelating agricultural seasons to the location of the sun in the zodiac. The location of theequinox among one or another zodiacal constellation, as the so-called Age of Aquarius orAge of Pisces, is something of concern to modern astrology, but is never mentioned assignificant in ancient astrology. It is simply anachronistic to believe that what isimportant to twentieth century astrology was of importance to ancient astrology. Toname another anachronism that appears to underlie her interpretation, the borders of constellations, between, say, Aries, Pisces, and Aquarius, are modern conventions of theInternational Astronomical Union, and there is nothing ancient about them. Ancientastrologers did not use Norton s Star Atlas nor anything else that drew arbitrary linesbetween sidereal constellations.What little can be said of the origin of the zodiac is far more complex and uncertain.Which constellations does she mean? The zodiaca constellations, known from 700 BC to





“In antiquity, constellations were just groups of stars, and there were no bordersseparating the region of one from the region of another. In astrology, for computationalpurposes the zodiacal signs were taken as twelve arcs of 30 degrees measured from thevernal equinox. Because of the slow westward motion of the equinoxes and solstices,what we call the precession of the equinoxes, these did not correspond to theconstellations with the same names. But . . . within which group of stars the vernalequinox was located, was of no astrological significance at all. The modern ideas aboutthe Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based upon the location of the vernalequinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations. But the regions, the bordersbetween, those constellations are a completely modern convention of the InternationalAstronomical Union for the purpose of mapping . . . and never had any astrologicalsignificance. I hope this is helpful although in truth what this woman is claiming is sowacky that it is hardly worth answering. So when this woman says that the Christian fishwas a symbol of the 'coming age of Pisces', she is saying something that no one wouldhave thought of in antiquity because in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal

equinox was located, was of no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believetwentieth- century, astrology.”May I ask you what your take on this is? Do you agree with my opponent or Swerdlow?Or do you have some separate thoughts? Thank you for your consideration. [7]

Dr. Krupp responded to me the same day with the following email:Professor Swerdlow is well informed on the ancient history of astronomy and astrology,and his report to you reflects current scholarly opinion formulated by textual evidence.Although people have traditionally projected terrestrial concerns and priorities onto thesky in celestial myth, the detailed astrological mapping your opponent advocates is notsupported by evidence and certainly cannot be tracked back two millennia or more asdescribed.

Your own source acknowledges that Swerdlow is both “well informed” and that his opinionreflects “current scholarly opinion” based on textual evidence. It seems that your contempt for the experts I cite is in error, Ms. Murdock. Furthermore, I find it likewise noteworthy that Kruppdisagrees with you concerning your assertion that the Christian fish is evidence that those inantiquity recognized the coming of the age of Pisces, commenting that what you advocate “is notsupported by evidence and certainl y cannot be tracked back two millennia or more as described.”I ask you again, please tell us how you know that those in antiquity recognized the ushering in of the age of Pisces by observing the skies. As I pointed out in my initial paper, Noel Swerdlow aswell as Jay Pasachoff, the Director of Hopkins Observatory, Chair of the Department of Astronomy at Williams College, and Encarta expert on astronomy have pointed out that thecelestial divisions were not accomplished until the 20 th century by the International AstronomicalUnion in 1928, rendering it impossible for the ancients to recognize an age of Pisces. Again, Ms.Murdock, do not merely make an assertion; please give us evidence. If my sources are correct(and yours!), you will find no sources in antiquity supporting your position. I also think findingsources is going to be especially difficult for you, since you reject second hand information (seeyour comments on Tacitus in The Christ Conspiracy , p. 51). This means you will need primarysources from the first century or before that support your contention that those in antiquityrecognized the age of Pisces.Moon Worship & JudaismWas Judaism essentially “moon worship” as you claim? I answered y ou on pages 3-5 of mypaper and you failed to respond to those criticisms. Your only response is a promise tosubstantiate your claims in your forthcoming book, Suns of God , by producing a number of experts who will prove your point. This is a tacit acknowledgement that you have failed to do so



in The Christ Conspiracy . Perhaps in Suns of God you will do more than merely quote a fewpeople who believe as you do. Perhaps you will be more careful to cite passages in their contextin this forthcoming book, since you failed to do so in The Christ Conspiracy as I pointed out onpages 2- 5 of my initial paper. It is not a matter of allegory being “above the heads of the vested

believers” as you assert in your rebuttal. It is a matter of a responsible exegesis of th e text, onethat any interested individual can employ simply by reading the text in the cases you have cited.In your rebuttal, you cite psychologist Theodor Reik on the matter of moon worship withinJudaism. But do Reik s reasons establish your point tha t the Jews of the first century and beforewere moon worshippers? Let us look at these one at a time. For the moment, I am granting thatyou have quoted Reik accurately and in context.

1) Reik appeals to Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 CE) who cites moon wors hip as “thereligion of Adam.” Rabbi Michael Panitz disagrees by saying there in no extant literatureto support this. [8] Panitz agrees that volumes of ancient near eastern texts have beenrecovered which speak of a very powerful moon-goddess in pagan cultures. Moreover,there certainly seems to have been syncretistic cultures within Judaism where a pure

Hebrew faith was tainted by pagan influence, which was absorbed into the culture andretained for some time. However, the absorbing of pagan practices has been done bysome adherents in all religions to some extent and is not indicative that Judaism hadpagan moon-worship as its origin.

2) Reik claims, “The moon was the emblem of Israel in Talmudic literature and in Hebrewtradition. The mythical ancestors of the Hebrews lived in Ur and Harran, the centers of the Semitic moon- cult.” You then comment that Abraham s father was a star -worshipperas was Abraham himself until he found the real God. The Talmud is 2 nd century A. D.and beyond and does not support your point for 1 st century or prior corroboration.Although some of the data in the Talmud originates in the first century, your task is todemonstrate that moon-worship belongs to that class. And you have not done that.

Furthermore, you have not cited a single Talmudic reference in support of your view.Joshua admits that Abraham s father served other gods (Joshua 4:2). However, this doesnot mean that Abraham was a moon-worshipper. There is no evidence that this was thecase. Moreover, even if he was, you yourself comment that this was only until he foundthe real God. Abraham s alleged practice of moon -worship before finding the real Godno more indicates that he continued this practice after finding the real God any more thanPaul s prior commitment to a zealous Judaism indicates that he continued ritual sacrificesafter his conversion to Christianity. You are employing non-sequitur reasoning.

3) Reik then states that Jewish astrotheology is reflected in Joseph s dream where Jacob iscalled the sun, his mother the moon and his brothers the stars. [9] However, let us readthese verses in their context:

Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, Ihave had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven starswere bowing down to me.” He related it to his father and to his brothers; and hisfather rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have had? ShallI and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down beforeyou to t he ground?” (Genesis 37:9 -10, NASB)

It seems pretty obvious that, in the context of Joseph s dream, the sun, moon, and elevenstars are used in a very figurative sense. For me this is far from convincing that Josephand his family practiced sun, moon, or star-worship.

4) You quote Reik:The experts assure us that the observance of Rosh Chodesh, the first of themonth, was once a major holiday, more important than the weekly Sabbath. They



also say that this festival was a reminder of the cult of the moon god.Rosh Chodesh is a minor monthly Jewish holiday observing the new month. The Jewsdetermine the date of this holiday based on the Jewish lunar calendar. Where are Reik sexperts who “assure us . . . that this festival was a reminder of the cult of the moon god”?Even if Rosh Chodesh has traces of paganism for any of a number of speculative reasons,that is not to say that Judaism had its origin in a moon cult any more than Christianityhad its origin in paganism because many Christians decorate a tree at Christmas or telltheir children about the Easter Bunny. Christians do not worship trees or pray to agratuitous bunny rabbit.

5) Reik then asserts that Mount Sinai means “the mountain of the moon,” with Sin being theBabylonian moon god. Can Reik be so certain of what he states as fact? The

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has the following introductory comments onMount Sinai: “The origin of the name is uncertain; some have suggested that it is relatedetymologically either to Heb. seneh , „thornbush, or to Bab. Sin, the ancient Semiticmoon-deity. Neither of these suggestions seems particularly sat isfactory . . .” [10] The

reasons for this are because both the mountain and the surrounding wilderness are called“Horeb ,” with “a root meaning a „desolate region or „ruin. ” This is prominent inDeuteronomy and present elsewhere in the Pentateuch. [11] Moreover, “„Sinai and„Horeb are used synonymously.” [12] These are the type of problems you run into whenpeople who are commenting on subjects outside of their area of expertise are consultedconsistently, a practice you follow frequently. I think this a good time to point out thatthis is a good example of what Robert Price said in his review of your book: “She isquick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, eitherwild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to manyinterpretations.” [13] Why do you uncritically accept Reik s interpretation of MountSinai, which is at least questionable, while rejecting far better recognized data, such as

Josephus mentioning of Jesus? You also do thi s throughout your book with thetraditions of Krishna and Buddha. It should be of no surprise to you that Price goes on tocomment regarding your book: “It is remarkable how and where some people s historicalskepticism comes crashing to a halt .” [14]

6) Finally, Reik takes us to the Old Testament where he claims that “traces of ancient moon -worship” exist. In support, he cites Deuteronomy 33:4, “Moses charged us with a law, a

possession for the assembly of Jacob” (NASB), and Psalm 12:16. It is difficult to seehow the former supports moon-worship even when the surrounding verses are consideredand the latter reference does not even exist! He also appeals to Jeremiah 8:1- 2: “„At thattime, declares the LORD, „they will bring out the bones of the kings of J udah and thebones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and thebones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. They will spread them out to thesun, the moon and to all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they haveserved, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they haveworshiped. They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of theground ” (NASB). Does this prove that moon -worship was an orthodox belief of Judaismrather than a cult to which some strayed? I ll grant you now that Jeremiah attests thatmoon-worship was practiced by some high-ranking Jews. However, the Old Testament isfilled with accounts of the Jewish nation and some of its kings straying away to othergods. Jeremiah certainly indicates that there were times when certain kings, princes,priests, prophets, and inhabitants of Judah worshipped the sun, moon, and stars.Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is what is being condemned in theHebrew Scriptures, not approved! You can assert all you like that the commands in the



Hebrew Scriptures against moon -worship is “a veil of allegory that was mistaken for „history. ” [15] But you provide no reasons for us to be lieve this to be the case andfurther demonstrate the accuracy of Price s statement who is bewildered at how your historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt.

MasonryRegarding Masonry s influence on the origin of Christianity, in support of your view that Masonswere involved in the invention of Christianity, you provide a quotation from Thomas Paine whodoes not say, at least in your quotation of him, that Christianity had its origin from Masons. Hemerely claims that both “are derived from the worship of the Sun,” [16] a claim that is certainlywrong. Consider the following:

And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars,all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those whichthe LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. (Deut. 4:19,NASB)If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is

giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God,by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them,or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it istrue and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shallbring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, theman or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. (Deut. 17:2-5, NASB)If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God isgiving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God,by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them,or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if

it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it istrue and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shallbring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, theman or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. (Job 31:26-28, NASB)Then He brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house. And behold, at theentrance to the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east; andthey were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun. He said to me, "Do you seethis, son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominationswhich they have committed here, that they have filled the land with violence and

provoked Me repeatedly?” (Ezek 8:16 -17, NASB)In the presence of these references, Paine had a lot of further explaining to do in regards to howthe first Christians who were Jews went from sun-worship to Jesus, when sun-worship wasforbidden in Judaism. You then cite Manly Hall, a 33 rd-degree Mason who claims that religion isbased on astrology. Yet, does this support your view that Masons were responsible for the originof Christianity? You have not made a case worth our serious consideration in my assessment.“God s Spell” In your answer to my point concerning the absence of scholarship in your definition of “Gospel,”you say that I have “no sense of humor or imagination.” [17] Your remark reminds me of Solomon s proverb, “L ike a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man whodeceives his neighbor, and says, „Was I not joking? ” (Proverbs 26:18 -19, NASB). Let thereaders of your book read your statement in context and judge for themselves whether you were

joking or if you made an academic blooper:



In reality, the contradictions in the gospels are overwhelming and irreconcilable by therational mind. In fact, the Gospel was not designed to be rational, as the true meaning of the word “gospel” is “God s Spell,” as in magic, hypnosis and delusion. As M ack says:“The narrative gospels can no longer be viewed as the trustworthy accounts of uniqueand stupendous historical events at the foundation of the Christian faith. The gospelsmust now be seen as the result of early Christian mythmaking.” [18]

Upon further review of your statement in context, it still does not appear to me that yourstatement regarding the meaning of gospel is anything but a statement of fact. Even in yoursecond defense of this definition, you indicate that you truly are holding on to that meaning of thegospel, defending that “the basic etymology of „gospel as provided by The Concise Oxford

Dictionary English Etymology ” supports this view. [19] But again and as I stated in my paper, “itdoes not matter what the English word means. What matters is what the word means in Greek,something Murdock does not even bother to consider.” [20] Again this seems to me a very oddmistake by someone who claims to be a scholar of the Greek language or, for that matter, anylanguage.

Textual CriticismYou state that I exhibit “sloppiness” when commenting on your “reporting of the claim that the New Testament has some 150,000 „variant readings. ” You say that you are “quoting someoneelse,” the “influential German theologian Griesbach (1745 -1812).” Moreover, you say that I have“not bothered to inquire as to why this figure had been reached but immediately assumes it sincorrect.” [21]Let us look again at your statement in context:

As noted by Otto Schmiedel . . . “If the Synoptists are right, the Fourth Gospel must berejected as a historical source.” In fact, as Wheless says: “The so -called „canonicalbooks of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusionsof text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more „variant readings, as is well known

and admitted.” In regard to these „variant readings, Waite states: “Of the 150,000 variantreadings which Griesbach found in the manuscripts of the New Testament, probably149,500 were additions and interpolations.” In this mess, the gospels pretended authors,the apostles, give conflicting histories and genealogies. [22]

It is clear by what you write that you are in support of Wheless and Waite in terms of the 150,000variants. Therefore, I see no problem in asserting, “She says that there are about 150,000 variantsin the manuscripts of the New Testament.” [23]Regarding your second contention that I have not asked you how this figure was arrived at, Ibelieve it is clear that my assessment is what is going on. You are aware that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament provides some of the most comprehensive information in terms of thetextual apparatuses, which discuss the textual variations in the New Testament. This text lists themanuscript variances for most verses in the New Testament. A few instances exist wherevariations are not recorded. This is because they are so minor and insignificant that our attentionis not merited due to their insignificance and that the matter is considered solved without disputeby textual critics. [24] There are 683 pages in this Greek New Testament. If 150,000 variantreadings existed in any other sense than what I presented in my paper, there would be an averageof 220 variations per page! One quick glance throughout the comprehensive textual apparatuseswill reveal that this is certainly not the case, since a page loaded with variations contains onlyabout 10. As I stated in my critique of your book, once the principles of textual criticism areapplied in the consideration of these variations, we arrive at a text that is virtually pure. It isimportant to note as well that any unresolved differences caused by the variances do not change asingle doctrine of the Christian faith. [25]With this in mind, Ms. Murdock, you have the proper forum now. Tell us how this figure was



reached if I am incorrect.Lighten UpI admonished you at the beginning of this reply that, in academia, you must be prepared forcriticisms that challenge your views. In your rebuttal, you write of me and those whom I quote,“To these suspicious detractors, I say, why don t you just ask me where this information,research, etc., comes from, instead of writing polemics and ad hominems against me? Why areyou taking my dissection of Christianity so personally that you are getting personal with me?There are obviously some unresolved psychological issues, and the behavior is childish. [sic] Aswell as macho, blustering, pompous, arrogant, conceited, etc. Proba bly even sexist” [26] and“Their knee -jerk reactions without inquiring of me or my research--even recommending a snooty,sophomoric and obnoxious response of ignoring me at all costs--are a sign of a personalityproblem, not of their cleverness or eruditio n.” [27] Spiteful rock -throwing at those who disagreewith you does not change a thing. On the one hand, you constantly boast of how well you havedocumented your points by how many endnotes are contained in your book. Yet on the otherhand you desire us to ask you where your information comes from. We see where it is coming

from, Ms. Murdock, and we are saying to you that we find it unconvincing and lacking inacademic quality.Atrocities Committed in the Name of ChristYou write, “And why are these men a ttacking me . . . over . . . an ideology that has beenresponsible for the torture and slaughter of millions of people worldwide? How can any honestperson with any integrity defend this ideology, with its bloody past, or its supposed founder, onwhose omnipotent shoulders ultimately rests the responsibility for the management of the worldand, thus, its endless atrocities?” [28] You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. Jesus would not have condoned the crusades and thenumerous inquisitions initiated by the Catholic Church. Jesus would not have said to kill peoplein his name. Indeed, He told Peter to put his sword away [29] and that Christians should love

their enemies. [30] It was only later that the Catholic Church, motivated by its politicalambitions, used religious rhetoric to sanctify its goals of domination as well as provide anaggressive defense against an even crueler and conquering Islam. You cannot judge a philosophyby its abuse.Have you forgotten the evils committed by atheists? In the 20 th century alone, more than 17million people were killed as a result of atheistic movements (Stalin: 7 million; Hitler: 9 million;Khmer rouge: 1.2 million). By contrast, about 500,000 people or less were killed as a result of thecrusades between the very end of the 11 th and 16 th centuries (about 400 years), although mostconsider the crusades to have ended by the beginning of the 14 th century. [31] Even if you addthose tortured and killed by numerous inquisitions conducted by the Catholic Church, it is noteven close to the tens of millions you claim. [32] Now of course we did not have the weapons of mass destruction in the Middle Ages that we have today, so the comparison only goes so far. Amore accurate comparison might be with regards to consciously religious states such as Iran, Iraq,and Israel verses nationalistic states such as Germany, Russia, and Cambodia. Even consideringthe Islamic states of Iran and Iraq as well as the deaths caused by Islamic terrorists in the 20 th century, including the recent attacks on our country, these hardly compare with the deaths causedby nationalism during the same period, even though a great many national causes dressthemselves up in religious jargon just as they have used terms like freedom (e.g., Vietnam andLenin). Do these atrocities committed by atheists invalidate atheism? I think not, because you cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. Lest you plan on responding that Hitler was a Christian as you do in your book, [33] let meaddress that now. I grant that at the beginning of his political career, Hitler used the GermanChurch for political propaganda purposes by utilizing Christian jargon. However, this does not by



any means make him a Christian. Not only do his fruits prove otherwise, but we have hisperso nal conversations. You yourself admit, “Whether or not Hitler was a „true Christian isdebatable.” [34] In a book respected by historians titled Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941 -1944 ,[35] Hitler states that religion is an “organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remainthe absolute master. . . .it s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies. . . . [It]was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples.. . . Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have sixdivisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn t prevent them fromgoing to their death with serenity in their souls.” [36] These are not the words of a Chris tian.JosephusYou are upset with my criticisms of your statements concerning Josephus. You write, “Liconamakes outrageously false statements that reflect how shallow is his knowledge of his chosenvocation: E.g., his claims about the passage in Josephus called the “Testimonium Flavianum”(“TF”). No, the “overwhelming majority of scholars” do NOT believe the TF to be authentic, butwhat can you expect from someone trying to sell such a bogus fable? As I will show in Suns of

God, many very well-known and erudite scholars have dismissed the TF in toto as being aforgery. In fact, it is quite obviously a forgery to those with common sense. In the meantime,readers may find quite a bit of debunking of the TF athttp://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm .”I have pointed out in my initial paper that your claim is not only unsubstantiated; it is false.[37] Ihave listed several well- known and respected scholars who acknowledge Josephus mentioningof Jesus in TF. What do the majority hold regarding this passage? I intend on conducting a surveyof all the scholarly literature written on the authenticity of the passage during the past 70 years. Inthe meantime and in lieu of this, I can share with you that the prominent Josephus scholar, LouisFeldman, who is no t a Christian, shared the following with me in an email: “My guess is that theratio of those who in some manner accept the Testimonium [to those who reject all of it as an

interpolation] would be at least 3 to 1. I would not be surprised if it would be as much as 5 to 1.”[38] This Josephus scholar has written extensively on the subject (e.g., Louis H. Feldman andGohei Hata, eds. Josephus, The Bible, and History [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987],473 pages; Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity [Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 1989], 448 pages; Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980[Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1984], 1,055 pages. In the latter, Feldman notes more than 100 scholarlydiscussions on this passage during that time period. Feldman was also the translator for the worksof Josephus for Harvard University Press s Loeb Classical Library .). So please understand why Ido not believe you when you claim “the „overwhelming majority of scholars do N OT believe theTF to be authentic.” [39] And even if you present “ many very well-known and erudite scholarswho have dismissed the TF in toto as being a forgery,” [40] something you have yet to do, thisdoes nothing to substantiate your claim that the “overwhelming majority of scholars” reject theauthenticity of the Testimonium. If Feldman is correct in his hunch, there are three to five timesmore scholars who grant that the Testimonium mentions Jesus.In your rebuttal, you refer us to Earl Doherty s tre atment of the Testimonium on your web site.This is not the place to critique his article. However, Doherty is not a Josephus scholar and onesource does not constitute an “overwhelming majority of scholars .” Citing a few scholars whototally reject Joseph us mentioning of Jesus will not do. You must support your claim that “these„references, [i.e., the two occasions in Josephus that mention Jesus] they have been dismissed byscholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries” [41] and that “the „overwh elming majority of scholars do NOT believe the TF to be authentic.” [42]TacitusIn your book you state that the passage in Tacitus Annals 15:44 cannot be used to confirm the

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm





existence of Jesus. Your reason for making this assertion is because Tacitus was not born untilabout 25 years after Jesus death and, therefore, his information is secondhand.[43] In my paper,I responded that such thinking is medieval in terms of historical criticism and that if this approachis adopted we could know very little of history.[44] Indeed, no one today could write an accuratehistory of the American Civil War.In your rebuttal, you state that “interested parties, however, should read Cutner's Jesus: God,

Man or Myth and the sources he cites, such as Hochart, Taylor and Ross. Licona's tactic in"refuting" me and my work seems to rest on his presenting my claims very superficially andmaking it seem as if I don't back them up.”[45] Before looking at this article you haverecommend, it should be noted that in your book, The Christ Conspiracy , you do not back upyour claims, except to say that no one mentions the passage prior to the 15 th century.[46] As withyour treatment of Justin, are the readers of The Christ Conspiracy supposed to know to go to yourweb site in order to receive information you should have documented in your book?

In Jesus: God, Man or Myth , you repeat your arguments from The Christ Conspiracy that the

reference of Jesus in Tacitus is not mentioned by anyone prior to the 15th

century and, even if genuine, is not an eyewitness account. However, I answered these in my paper and you neverresponded to my critiques.

Let s look now at your article, which is a summary of Cutner s work and the new arguments you present against the authenticity of this passage. Cutner s reasons are presented in italics with myresponses following:

1. If there had been a Neronian persecution, why in heaven's name has so remarkably littlebeen found concerning it elsewhere? Authors write on the subjects of their choice. Ms.Murdock, are you aware that Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, or Nero are never

mentioned in any of the writings of the apostolic fathers? Does this exclude the existenceof these emperors? Are you aware that Julius Caesar s crossing of the Rubicon (49 B.C.), an event that forever changed the course of Rome, is mentioned only by Vellieus(after A. D. 30), Appian (2 nd century A D), Plutarch (after A. D. 70), and Suetonius (A.D. 115)? [47] That is only one source within 100 years of the event. Moreover,considering your criteria of needing to be an eyewitness, there aren't any and the earliestmanuscript we have of these writings are 1,000 years removed from the alleged originals.Why not argue that these, too, are late and forgeries as you seem to do with Tacitus anddeny the existence of Julius Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon? [48] You would belaughed out of court. Should it be of no surprise to you then that no scholars are takingyour work seriously?

2. Why was the passage never quoted by Tertullian (who often quotes Tacitus) or Eusebiusor any other early Christian apologist? All Tacitus affirms in his mentioning of Jesus isthat he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and that his followers did not abandon him afterhis death. What benefit would this passage have played in an apologetic, if no one in thetime of the author was questioning the existence of an historical Jesus? Not one of thewritings from the early opponents of Christianity such as Celsus seemed to havequestioned the existence of Jesus. It appears as though you expect Tertullian andEusebius to address issues that apparently did not exist. I ask you, Ms. Murdock, provideus with references in Tertullian and Eusebius or any of the early Christian apologists youmention where these words of Tacitus would have been beneficial for them to use.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm







3. Tacitus does not mention Christ, Christians or Christianity anywhere else in his writings. Tacitus is a secular historian writing of Roman history. Where would bringing up Jesushave helped his objective in writing? Please provide an example in order to support yourpoint.

4. This entire work of Tacitus known as Annals was unknown until the 15th century, when it was "discovered" by Poggio Bracciolini. In 1878, WJ Ross attempted to prove that

Bracciolini himself had forged the Annals . With his expertise in Latin, Ross was readilyable to demonstrate that the Annals differed in style from Tacitus's genuine writings.

Indeed, some of the phrases match those employed by Bracciolini in his own writings. Ihave not read Ross book on Tacitus. However, if Ross s thesis on Tacitus is socompelling, I find it interesting that no scholars who specialize in Roman history todayacknowledge it that I know of. Rather, as I pointed out in my paper, severalcontemporary scholars use expressions like “feeble attempts” and “pure speculation” todescribe writings li ke Ross s. [49]

5. It is obviously only a report from believers in “Christ.” How is this “obvious,” Ms.Murdock? In The Christ Conspiracy , you likewise refer to Tacitus mentioning of Jesusas “an interpolation and forgery.” [50] Where is your data in support of this? You havenot provided any in your book or your article. It remains an unsubstantiated assertion onyour part.

I think at this point it is quite clear that you have failed to support your position that Tacitus doesnot acknowledge the historical Jesus. Moreover, you failed to answer any of the reasons Iprovided for why the passage in Tacitus is genuine. Therefore, the critical New Testamentscholar, John Meir s conclusion still stands, “despite some feeble attempts to show that this text

is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessedin all the manuscripts of the Annals , the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christianorigin almost impossible.” [51]

JustinRegarding Justin s knowledge of the Gospels, you are correct that I was unfamiliar with your article on your web site. However, as I pointed out regarding Tacitus, this does not excuse youfrom the lack of documentation in your book regarding this matter. Let s now look at your article,since you claim to have “gone into great detail regarding the purported references in Martyr” inthis article. You write, “A number of the purported passages in Justin that correspond to NewTestament scriptures come from a text called „Memoirs of the Apostles, which, Cassels shows,is a single book by that title, not a reference to several „memoirs or apostolic gospels.”[52]In support of this you cite Cassels who claims this volume is in contradiction many times withthe four Gospels. However, as I pointed out in my paper, Justin elsewhere refers to the Memoirsas the Gospels: “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[53] I point ed this out to you in mypaper, but you completely ignored it.We have not been informed by you, Cassels, or Keeler who you likewise appeal to of anymeaningful contradictions with the Gospels. You quote Keeler who writes, “There is almostinvariably some difference, either in sense or construction, showing that Justin's book wasdifferent from our Gospels. Moreover, he [i.e., Justin] quotes from it things which are not in ourGospels.” [54] Where are these differences in the Memoirs, which Keeler asserts distinguishthem from the Gospels? We are never told. If contradictions between the Gospels and the



Memoirs really exist, please point them out to us. Do not leave us merely to accept the words of your sources. This should not be difficult for you to resea rch, since I have listed all of Justin s 14references to the Memoirs of the Apostles in my paper.[55] However, you will find that not one of Justin s citing of the Memoirs contradicts the Gospels. Keep in mind that in these passages,Justin uses Old Testament verses, the Gospels, and his own commentary. Why did you not check these out, Ms. Murdock?Other than these additional comments from your article to which you have referred us, I seenothing in it that adds anything to what you claim in The Christ Conspiracy . Therefore, you havenot addressed and refuted my critiques as you claim.[56] Justin certainly refers to the Gospels inhis writings, which places their composition earlier than you have claimed.KrishnaIn your rebuttal you write, “Nor did his “experts” --who are evidently completely unaware of thisdebate--apparently bother to read the excerpt, or they could not have so shamelessly impugnedmy character with their puerile remarks.” Ms. Murdock, they were aware of your excerpt.Appropriate portions of your article and book were quoted to them verbatim. Regarding your

“Christian sources,” Lundy and Georgius, even if you are correct, Lundy and Georgius write of their contemporary experiences with present-day Hindus. This does nothing to support yourposition that Hindus in antiquity worshipped a crucified Krishna. Hindu traditions on the life of Krishna come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa , which as I pointed out in mypaper, both post-date the rise of Christianity and, therefore, do nothing to support your thesis.[57]If you desire to convince us that the experts to whom you defer like Barbara Walker, who writeson issues concerning women and who produces tarot cards is more acquainted with Hinduismthan the professor of Hindu Studies at Rutgers who has devoted his career to the subject, youmust do more than simply cla im that my sources “are unable to do research into anything „new ”and that they are “ completely unaware of this debate.” Please provide us with clear evidence thatrefute their contention that you are misinformed. Do not merely quote the opinion of others. Tell

us which ancient manuscripts contain stories of a crucified and resurrected Krishna and Buddhaand provide us with a dating of these manuscripts in order to demonstrate that, even if they exist,the stories precede the Christian account and are not copying from it.BuddhaIn your rebuttal and citing your own words from The Christ Conspiracy , you write of, “this non -historicity and of the following characteristics of the Buddha myth, which are not widely known [ital. yours] but which have their hoary roots in the mists of time . . .” [58] We still have yet tolearn from where you get your “not widely known” information. You simply quote others whomany times turn out being terribly wrong and unscholarly in both their exegesis and reasoning.In reading the article to which you refer us, I saw no striking similarities or much in support of the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity that you claim in your book. Granted, theHindus have worshipped gods over time. No one would ever dispute this. However, the mereworship of God or a son of God does this prove your overall thesis that your alleged fabricatorsof Christianity borrowed from Hinduism or even Buddhism? Your article does nothing new tosupport this thesis. In fact, your research method is still evident: You seem to think that merelyquoting someone who states the position you hold provides evidence for the truth of your view.Furthermore, you quote someone, for example, Abbé Huc, who obviously quotes someone elsequoting him, indicating a secondary source — and do not bother to inform us who it is you areciting. Your interaction with primary sources is extremely rare. Moreover, when we go to thoseprimary sources, on numerous occasions we learn that they are wrong.What of the Rest of Your Book?You inquire of me what I do with the remaining of The Christ Conspiracy that I have notcommented on. My intent was not to provide an exhaustive critique on the entire volume. What I





Conspiracy,’” (henceforth referred to as “Rebuttal”), p. 2. [2] Rebuttal, p.2.[3] Ibid.[4] In a personal email correspondence dated 12/01/01.[5] Rebuttal, pp. 3-4.[6] The Christ Conspiracy , pp. 151-152.[7] In a personal email correspondence dated 11/28/01.[8] In a personal telephone conversation dated 11/29/01.[9] See your rebuttal to my paper, “A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's „Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy,’” Thencefo rth referred to as “Rebuttal”), p. 4. [10] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Volume Four(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), pp. 525-526.[11] Ibid., p. 526 where Deut 1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15 and Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6 are listed asexamples.[12] Ibid., p. 526. For examples, see Exodus 31:18; 34:29; Deuteronomy 9:8-11; 1 Kings 8:9 and

Exodus 19:18-20:19; Deuteronomy 18:16.[13] Robert M. Price, “Aquarian Skeptic” in Free Inquiry , Vol. 21, No. 3 (Amherst: The Councilfor Secular Humanism, 2001), pp. 66-67.[14] Ibid.[15] Rebuttal, p. 5.[16] Ibid.[17] Ibid., p. 6.[18] The Christ Conspiracy , pp. 45-46.[19] Rebuttal, p. 6.[20] Paper, p. 18.[21] Rebuttal, p. 7.

[22] The Christ Conspiracy , p. 41.[23] Paper, p. 10.[24] In a personal telephone conversation with New Testament exegete, Professor Ronald Sauer11/ 29/01.[25] Paper, p. 10.[26] Rebuttal, p. 7.[27] Ibid., p. 9.[28] Ibid., p. 7.[29] Matthew 26:52.[30] Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27-28, 35.[31] In a personal email correspondence with Professor Skip Knoll of Boise State University on9/10/2001.[32] The Christ Conspiracy , p. 11.[33] Ibid., pp. 2-3.[34] Ibid., p. 3.[35] New York: Farrar, Straus and Young.[36] Ibid., p. 117.[37] Paper, pp. 12-14.[38] In a personal email correspondence dated 11/26/01.[39] Rebuttal, p. 7.[40] Ibid.[41] Paper, p. 12.[42] Rebuttal, p. 7.



[43] The Christ Conspiracy , p. 51.[44] Paper, p. 15.[45] Rebuttal, p. 8.[46] The Christ Conspiracy , p. 51.[47] James Sabben-Clare. Caesar and Roman Politics 60-50 BC: Source Material in Translation (London: Bristol Classical Press, 1971).[48] In “A review by Acharya S of Jesus: God, Man or Myth? by Herb Cutner” you make thefollowing two statements: “Again, this text, if genuine, would date no earlier than the earlysecond century, so it is not an „eyewitness account of the existence of Jesus Christ” and “In anyevent, these „references, even if genuine and/or referring to Christ, are nothing more thanhearsay long after the fact.” In your book, The Christ Conspiracy (p. 51), you write, “thehistorian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after„the Savior s alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or hisimmediate followers, they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events.” [49] Paper, p. 15.

[50] The Christ Conspiracy , p. 51.[51] John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One (New York:Doubleday, 1991), p. 90.[52] www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm [53] Paper, p. 7. Justin s First Apology , ch. 66.[54] www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm.[55] Paper, p. 7.[56] Rebuttal, p. 8.[57] Paper, p. 6.[58] Rebuttal, p. 9 or The Christ Conspiracy , p. 109.[59] Ibid., p. 5.

[60] Ibid., pp. 5-6.[61] Ibid., p. 13.[62] Ibid., p. 6.[63] Ibid., p. 5.[64] Ibid.[65] See this current paper, pp. 10-11.[66] Ibid., pp. 11-12.[67] Rebuttal, p. 10.[68] Free Inquiry , Summer 2001, p. 67.[69] Rebuttal, p. 1.[70] John Ankerburg Show: Habermas-Flew Debate, p. 20.[71] During this debate with Habermas, Flew initially proposed grief hallucinations on the part of the disciples and a conversion disorder for Paul in order to account for their beliefs that they hadexperienced an encounter with the risen Jesus. When Habermas answered these opposingtheories, Flew abandoned both of them.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm




Documents

A Refutation of Acharya S's Book, The Christ Conspiracy - By Mike Licona